Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:
Sure but how do we know? And why should we give the benefit of the doubt to a work which begins with an absolutely implausible historical event (the Ascension) and which was explicitly referenced as 'spurious' by fellow contemporary Christians?

Because they believed this man was so special he was one with god. That his soul so pure it went to heaven on the express route after 40 days lol which I believe later turned into a physical one. Look at the speudepigrapha on this with the giant cross reaching into heaven and we can see the vivid imagination of these traditions in mythology. Only the mots popular traditions survived.

These people lived theology and mythology deeply ingrained to their ignorance of the natural world. We are talking about some primitive people being led by the slightest few with any real education that could read and write, and many of these traditions recorded reflect the general publics idiocy.

'spurious' was due to the fact there were many different beliefs generated in the martyrdom. Wide diversity exited historically without question based on the evidence we possess.

Like it or not the martyrdom has 100% historicity, whether the man does or does not. A Galilean was martyred in Acts.


I know you discover many good things by thinking out of the box, but should we at least find common ground, on what has historicity without question?

Because they believed this man was so special he was one with god. That his soul so pure it went to heaven on the express route after 40 days lol which I believe later turned into a physical one. Look at the speudepigrapha on this with the giant cross reaching into heaven and we can see the vivid imagination of these traditions in mythology. Only the mots popular traditions survived.

These people lived theology and mythology deeply ingrained to their ignorance of the natural world. We are talking about some primitive people being led by the slightest few with any real education that could read and write, and many of these traditions recorded reflect the general publics idiocy.

But if you were on a first date and the lady said that she's had lots of boyfriends who were intensely bisexual or she just gave up her career as a prostitute servicing prison inmates and then in the next breath she asked you to come up to her place and that you don't have to wear a condom. Wouldn't you want to wear a condom or not go at all? You know what I am saying? With Acts or hookers I guess it comes down to how desperate you are ...

Secret Alias wrote: Sure but how do we know?

64,000 question right there.


I'm stating it matches a baseline of unquestioned historicity in many areas. I'm not saying to assume anything because it does contain historical pseudepigrapha.

Context points to a martyred man that generated theology in a group that did not want to be identified with Cultural rebellious Jews, and that they no longer wanted to follow the cultural laws they were required to follow in the past.

So to the point. We factually have to address the evolution of the theological movement away from Judaism here, in context,,,,,, or any replacement hypothesis will fail.

In my personal opinion and what gets me the most here. These authors used artistic freedom in the rhetoric they used to build their theology so we can literally get into their heads and know their intention. I don't see a cover up or an invention, they try and persuade us to they thinking, they lead us in their direction. And none are really addressing the mans historicity in this fashion as if it was common knowledge he existed without question.

Well just to change the subject - mostly because you apparently didn't find my addition of the word 'career' in my last post as funny as I did - don't you find it odd that the Ascension only appears in Acts? I think it's very surprising. You'd expect to have THAT BEGINNING of Acts as the end of the gospel. That's its there says something about the earliest gospels I think.

Secret Alias wrote:Well just to change the subject - mostly because you apparently didn't find my addition of the word 'career' in my last post as funny as I did - don't you find it odd that the Ascension only appears in Acts? I think it's very surprising. You'd expect to have THAT BEGINNING of Acts as the end of the gospel. That's its there says something about the earliest gospels I think.

It was no central to any of the theology or mythology.

Look at how little Mark even addresses the resurrection in the original text before the multiple endings.


This is evidence of evolving theology.

outhouse wrote:This is evidence of evolving theology.

When Lenin gained control of Russia, at the expense of murdering a number of people, he had to show that Marx had actually described the Russian development. He had to show that Russia had in fact gone through the Industrial Revolution and the "Capitalist Stage" so that, as the "Vanguard of the Proletariat", he and his henchment could justifiably rule according to the Diktats of the Central Committee. Neat trick - so long as you are the one on the Central Committee. With the arrival of Stalin, even that was not enough.

"So it goes".

What Mark gives us, and GJohn as well, is evidence of a Creation in exactly the same manner. It ends in an "evolving theology" but it appears as if it began at a point in time by a realization of some "Central Committee" that there is a need, there is a device and there is a method that can be appropriated to achieve that end, where the "We" contols the Body of the New Religion.

"Who's face do you see on the coin?" is a False Question since, according to Caesar, he owns everything anyway. This New Religion makes it a Blessing to send YOUR money to the New Religious Empire, without all those "Tiresome Exercises" and all of those bloody battles 'n stuff. The blood and murder are Transvalued and YOU are none the worse for it since all of that other horrific stuff has been "Done Away With". As long as a Caligula-Stalin doesn't appear.

"How'd that work out?"

John,

But these statements don't address my observation. If I was writing a book and it starts with the sudden appearance of Jesus it is strange and unexpected that after dying and being buried only to discover an empty tomb (and then allegedly appearing again) the gospel ends with the dying and resurrected man walking the earth. We know of course that Mark ends with the empty tomb and so ignore the other endings. But these other endings linger long enough in our mind to help us ignore the incompatibility with the beginning of Acts. In other words, if Mark originally ended with the empty tomb Acts makes no sense. So the natural conclusion is that Luke rewrote Mark and then wrote Acts. But this is in itself bizarre because either (1) he used Matthew to write Luke but even by the time Matthew rewrites Mark there is no mention in Matthew of the Ascension. It only has the disciples 'sent out' to become apostles or (2) he used some common source with Matthew which again doesn't know about the Ascension.

Since Luke also knew Josephus and incorporated into his gospel we have to conclude that Luke made up the stuff about the Ascension. For how could Matthew have added the sending out of the apostles but not the Ascension?

Zactly!

Secret Alias wrote: So the natural conclusion is that Luke rewrote Mark and then wrote Acts.

Agreed.

But this is in itself bizarre

I don't see it that way.

I view Mark as text rushed to preserve oral and written traditions due to the fall of the temple. With the fall of he temple, the whole way these early followers shared information yearly at Passover changed. No longer were these people gathering together sharing traditions in this drunken BBQ.

I see a later community after 2 decades of Mark circulating having to deal with the evolving mythology and theology that went past Marks, and this community had different ideas on what was important to their community. They viewed the text as incomplete, so did the redactors who added/changed the ending of Mark. The fact we have different accounts of the ending shows as an example the sheer diversity in beliefs before orthodoxy.

(1) he used Matthew to write Luke but even by the time Matthew rewrites Mark there is no mention in Matthew of the Ascension

I don't place dependence of Luke on Matthew. I view both as plagiarizing Marks text due to diversity in different geographic locations independently.

no mention in Matthew of the Ascension, again showing diversity in different early beliefs from one community to the next.

I also do not view Matthew as redacting Mark, less you have a tie to the Matthian authorship to one of the redacted endings, that I have never heard of.

(2) he used some common source with Matthew which again doesn't know about the Ascension.

I think there were many carried traditions with similarities oral and written we don't know about but guess. All these books were plagiarized compilations of sorts, and they only collected what they personally viewed as important.

So yes #2 is possible, but I would posit "they" not "he" for authorship.

Since Luke also knew Josephus and incorporated into his gospel

Is this not assumptive at this point?

Could Josephus not know the text attributed to Luke?

Luke made up the stuff about the Ascension.

Most of what was used was used rhetorically was done so combatively, to compete with others different traditions.

There is little reason to think this tradition did not exist prior, and was just now being addressed is said communities opinions.

And on the other side of the coin they may have used this myth to address the changing theology building a 40 day credible straight from the horses mouth "source" for the new teachings importance. If this is the case, its more likely they took a standing tradition and used it to convey the new message.

Did we get any later church fathers who heard traditions this did not take place? That is your area in detail. I would suspect a new unknown tradition changing the heart of the early mythology should have drawn some criticism.

outhouse wrote:The fact we have different accounts of the ending shows as an example the sheer diversity in beliefs before orthodoxy.

*AND*

I would suspect a new unknown tradition changing the heart of the early mythology should have drawn some criticism.

This could all be true unless it is the Orthodoxy itself that is doing the Shaping. Did Valentius become a Heretic as his position is offered and then Rejected? It is a simple matter to declare that "Satan early on attempted to take over the Movement but the Presbyters were vigilant and eradicated the Heresies".

Again, it doesn't matter if the Program works or not. Millions starved and were murdered and thrown into Gulags by the Soviets and It Didn't Matter! "Let a Thousand Schools of Thought Contend!" - Until it is not appropriate anymore and the Central Committee Transvalues the Transvaluation. Change a few words, state that a Valentinus was a heretic and you save parchment AND help the enviroment! Win Win! "Deng took the wrong line against Mao and was consigned to the fields for rehabilitation..." Win Win!

CW